9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1405 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - absconding and concealing himself to avoid service of warrant of arrest - rejection of bail on the ground that as the accused is absconding and even the proceedings under section 82/83 Cr.PC have been issued, the accused is not entitled to the anticipatory bail - HELD THAT - It is required to be noted that after investigation a charge sheet has been filed against respondent no.2 accused for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 of IPC also. Thus it has been found that there is a prima facie case against the accused. It has come on record that the arrest warrant was issued by the learned Magistrate as far as back on 19.12.2018 and thereafter proceedings under sections 82 83 of Cr.PC have been initiated pursuant to the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 10.01.2019. Only thereafter respondent No.2 moved an application before the learned Trial Court for anticipatory bail which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saran, by a reasoned order. The specific allegations of cheating, etc., which came to be considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all been considered by the High Court. Even the High Court has just ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings under sections 82 83 of Cr.PC by simply observing that be that as it may . The aforesaid relevant aspect on grant of anticipatory bail ought not to have been ignored by the High Court and ought to have been considered by the High Court very seriously and not casually. The High court has committed an error in granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 accused ignoring the proceedings under Section 82 83 of Cr.PC. - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 by the High Court. 2. The accused being absconding and initiation of proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr.PC. 3. Seriousness of the offences under sections 406, 420 of IPC. 4. Observations by the High Court regarding the nature of accusation arising out of a business transaction. 5. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma. Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Anticipatory Bail to Respondent No.2 by the High Court: The Supreme Court noted that the High Court granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 despite the fact that the accused was absconding and proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr.PC had been initiated. The High Court's decision was based on the observation that the nature of the accusation arose out of a business transaction. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning insufficient and highlighted that the High Court ignored relevant aspects, including the seriousness of the charges and the accused's non-cooperation with the investigation. 2. The Accused Being Absconding and Initiation of Proceedings Under Sections 82-83 of Cr.PC: The Supreme Court emphasized that the accused was absconding, and proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr.PC had been initiated. It was noted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued a proclamation against the accused, and subsequently, the accused's anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the Trial Court. The High Court's decision to grant anticipatory bail overlooked these critical facts, which should have been considered seriously. 3. Seriousness of the Offences Under Sections 406, 420 of IPC: The Supreme Court highlighted that the offences under sections 406 and 420 of IPC are serious. The Trial Court had considered the seriousness of these offences in detail while rejecting the anticipatory bail application. The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of these allegations and the prima facie case established against the accused, as evidenced by the charge-sheet filed. 4. Observations by the High Court Regarding the Nature of Accusation Arising Out of a Business Transaction: The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that the nature of the accusation arising out of a business transaction justified granting anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court clarified that even in business transactions, offences under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, etc., of IPC can occur. The nature of the allegations and accusations should be the primary consideration, not the context of a business transaction. 5. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Decision in the Case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma: The Supreme Court referred to its decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma, where it was held that a person declared as an absconder or proclaimed offender under section 82 of Cr.PC is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2, ignoring the proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr.PC. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court's judgment and order granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2. The Court allowed two weeks for respondent No.2 to surrender before the concerned Trial Court and noted that the accused could apply for regular bail, which would be considered on its own merits and in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed in these terms.
|
